Is Trump rewriting the delegate rules or defending them?

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...

• Alabama Republicans are set to vote on and adopt delegate allocation rules for the Super Tuesday presidential primary. But where is the state party taking them? Making it easier to win delegates? Harder? Maintaining the status quo. One thing is clear: the party does not have much room to make them harder. All the details at FHQ Plus.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.

In Invisible Primary: Visible today...

...

Politico makes a contribution to the Trump and the 2024 delegate rules storyline that has periodically been touched on by most major national news outlets in 2023. And there is some nice color to Rachael Bade's story, but FHQ does not know how much it is actually adding to what is already known. Generally, candidates seek to influence the state level delegate selection rules, and Trump, in particular, is making some attempt at creating even more frontrunner-friendly rules in the Republican process this cycle. That was established at least as early as February.

And in some respects the Trump campaign has been very active in the process to craft rules at the state level that play to the former president's advantage. But the scope of that activity has been less rewriting -- the headline writer's word, not Bade's -- than it has been playing defense. Because as Bade describes in the piece...

The wonky-yet-important effort underscores just how politically savvy the Trump operation — once caught flat-footed by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s attempted delegate mutiny at the 2016 Republican National Convention — has become. And it exposes how Trump’s aides have been running circles around his rivals, with only one of them — Ron DeSantis and his allies at the Never Back Down super PAC — even putting up a fight.

Again, that is consistent with what has been reported thus far in 2023. Yet, in context, this maneuvering is an extension of what the equally savvy, yet, far less opposed Team Trump did in 2019. Like this cycle, the RNC rules for the 2020 cycle carried over, largely unchanged. That confined any effort at massaging the rules -- within those national party guidelines -- to those on the state level. And the Trump campaign set out to do just that, pushing the bar so high for also-ran candidates in the 2020 cycle that it was nearly impossible for them to win any delegates. 

That was the baseline that Team Trump established for 2024. And honestly, the campaign then gave the campaign now very little additional room to maneuver. It is not that they cannot make any further changes to make delegate allocation harder for other candidates, but that there just are not that many places where they can lobby to turn the knob up even higher (within RNC rules). 

Consequently, most of what the Trump campaign has done in 2023 is play defense. They did so in California, warding off an alternate plan that would have eroded the gains there from four years ago. The same seems true of Alabama. At the end of June, there was talk of DeSantis World having some potential success in nudging the qualifying threshold for delegates there lower. But again, Trump has been playing defense in the Yellowhammer state. The Massachusetts Republican Party chair recently suggested that the party was considering dropping its winner-take-all threshold altogether. Bade seems to indicate that Trump is playing defense there as well. 

And then there are Colorado and Louisiana, sites of Cruz success in the behind-the-scenes delegate battle against Trump in 2016. Both are pretty much maxxed out in terms of delegate allocation barriers allowed under RNC rules, but Team Trump has been fixated on completely ending any thought of a possibility of unbound delegates in either. Proposals in each would have delegates bound through two ballots at the national convention. That might be overkill, but it also fits the pattern of the former president's campaign playing defense with the rules established for 2020, not allowing them to ebb much if at all. 

This will continue. It will continue all the way up to October 1, the deadline by which state Republican parties are to submit their delegate selection plans to the Republican National Committee. And as October 1 approaches, it is important to consider these efforts in this context. Trump is mostly defending the high water mark created in 2019 and smoothing over any other rough edges that they missed then for this cycle. That is the story here. 

 

...

From around the invisible primary...

• NYT/Siena finds Trump ahead in Iowa, but lagging behind the pace he has established in national surveys. In a Mondale versus Hart sort of way -- wins relative to expectations -- maybe that matters, but a Trump win in the caucuses in January is one less opportunity for someone else to break through (if no one has by that point).
• Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin received another big contribution to his political action committee, the one geared toward success in the off-year state legislative races in the Old Dominion, from Thomas Peterffy, who had previously given to Ron DeSantis.
• Former Vice President Mike Pence is slowly but surely gaining on debate qualification, pulling in donors after his strong comments about Trump following the former president's third indictment.
• In the endorsement primary, Ron DeSantis was endorsed by another 35 state lawmakers and local officials in South Carolina. The inclination of some may be to shrug endorsements like this off, but with all the big endorsements in the Palmetto state already behind Trump or running themselves, these sorts of endorsements matter. The Florida governor recently also rolled out a wave of sheriff endorsements in Iowa. 
• In Ohio, Trump won the endorsements of Reps. Bill Johnson and Troy Balderson as well as state Treasurer Robert Sprague. And ahead of his address to Alabama Republicans, the former president received the endorsements of the six member Republican US House delegation from the state. 
• In the travel primary, Trump will trek to Alabama tonight, South Carolina tomorrow and New Hampshire early next week. North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum was in the Granite state earlier this week. 
• The Quad City Times had a local look at Iowans kicking the tires on South Carolina Senator Tim Scott's campaign. 
• Stand for Freedom PAC, the super PAC aligned with former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, has placed a $6.2 million ad buy for Iowa and New Hampshire over the next nine weeks. 
• In more from the money primary, Florida donors continue to be a financial lifeline for DeSantis.

--

Recent posts:

Let's talk about the state of Republican delegate selection rules for 2024 (Part One)

Are the Republican debate qualification rules hurting business as usual in Iowa?

Revisiting the Frankenstein's Monster 

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email. Oh, and find us on Threads: @fhq.plus.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

DeSantis and Trump battle to influence state-level delegate rules for 2024

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...

• There may be some missing pieces at this point in the invisible primary, but there is a general idea about where the 2024 presidential primary calendar will end up. However, what about filing deadlines? When do candidates and their campaigns have to clear hurdles to get on the ballot in the various primaries and caucuses next year? All the details at FHQ Plus.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.

In Invisible Primary: Visible today...

...

It is not exactly news that Donald Trump and his campaign have been working state parties in order to assemble as advantageous a set of state-level delegate selection rules for the former president as possible for 2024. The Washington Post ran a story in February that covered similar ground and also brought up Idaho and Michigan as battlegrounds on that front. 

But that is not to say that there is nothing (or nothing new) in the story about Team Trump pushing for rules changes on the state level up at Reuters today. One just has to dig and parse a bit to get at it. 

Yes, Nevada is in the mix, but questions about whether the early contest in the Silver state would be a primary or a caucus are not new. In fact, the primary calendar filling out still hinges on that decision to some degree. A lesser degree than before South Carolina Republicans weighed in recently, but the decision Nevada Republicans will make still matters. 

And Missouri is a bit of a wildcard as well. The legislature's inability to restore the presidential primary for 2024 in the Show-Me means that there is some mystery in -- if not jockeying by the candidates to influence -- what rules Missouri Republicans settle on in the coming weeks and months. 

Those states make some sense. Each was, has been or will be up for grabs in terms of what the delegate selection rules will look like. 

But Alabama? 

That is an interesting one. It is one that the DeSantis campaign is eyeing and over the threshold to win delegates. Importantly, Alabama Republicans have used a system that requires candidates to win 20 percent in order to qualify for delegates in recent cycles. [The Yellowhammer State was a truly winner-take-all state before 2012.] Yet, 20 percent is the maximum at which a state party can set the qualifying threshold. If there is any change there, then it will be to a lower level than 20 percent. 

That is noteworthy and hints at some underlying strategic direction from Team DeSantis that has not really been adequately explored out there. Part of that lies in the qualifying thresholds that the Florida governor is flirting with in some cases. But another is the assumption that caucuses are good for Trump. That could turn out to be the case. The former president did not necessarily excel in the format in 2016, but the complexion of state parties have changed some in the time since, moving toward Trump in some respects. And that suggests that there may be a real battle in caucus states like the above once the calendar flips to 2024. Until then -- or October 1 anyway -- the lobbying continues.

...

The headlines today all seemed to read that Trump had expanded his lead in first-in-the-nation New Hampshire. And indeed the former president pulled in just south of 50 percent in a pair of new polls released from the Granite state. But FHQ scrolled down a little further to see where everyone else was. 

Why?

Delegates are on the line. No, the New Hampshire primary has never been about delegates. There will only be 22 at stake there some time in January next year. But here is the thing: Trump has a sizable lead, and it is just the former president and DeSantis who qualify for delegates. Even with a fairly low 10 percent qualifying threshold, no one else would be in the running for delegates out of the Granite state. Trump would take somewhere in the range of 16-17 delegates and DeSantis would take the rest. No, it is not about the delegates in New Hampshire, but even Jeb Bush got three in 2016. 

And this is yet another illustration of just how much oxygen the pair are taking up in the race for the Republican nomination. It is crowding others out even though it is somewhat lopsided at this moment in the invisible primary. 

...

From around the invisible primary...

• In the endorsement primary, DeSantis received the support of the Florida Police Benevolent Association, a group that was aligned with President Trump in 2020. 
• Team Pence has a campaign manager, Steve DeMaura, a former New Hampshire Republican Party executive director. 
• Both Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley have accepted invitations from Iowa Rep. Ashley Hinson to appear at the Republican congresswoman's barbecue in the first-in-the-nation caucus state in August. 

...

On this date...

...in 2011, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann officially launched her bid for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. 

...in 2019, Democratic presidential candidates gathered for the second of two consecutive nights of debates in Miami, the initial primary debates of the 2020 cycle. 

--

Recent posts:

DeSantis Deemphasizing New Hampshire?

[From FHQ Plus] The Georgia primary isn't really in "limbo"

The difference in how the national parties approve delegate selection plans

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Nevada responds to State Republican Party suit against the new presidential primary

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...

• There are two operative questions that have yet to be answered in the New Hampshire Democratic Party's calendar standoff with the Democratic National Committee. No decisions made by the Rules and Bylaws Committee in Minneapolis last week changed those questions. But of course it was not reported that way. All the details at FHQ Plus.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.

In Invisible Primary: Visible today...

...

The always great Nevada Independent has the scoop on the state of Nevada's response to the recent lawsuit filed by the Republican Party in the Silver state to stop the presidential primary. Here is the most important factor in all of this (and something FHQ has pointed out already):

"Under the 2021 law, the state will hold a presidential primary election for both major political parties on Feb. 6, 2024, as long as more than one candidate has filed to run."

The lawsuit is unnecessary. If Nevada Republicans want to opt out of the primary, then they can. If candidates want to chase actual delegates, then they will file, under whatever conditions the Nevada Republican Party sets, to run in the caucuses. There will not be a primary unless more than one presidential campaign wastes its time, money and energy in filing to run in what would be a meaningless beauty contest primary. Without the Republican primary, there will be no potential conflict for Nevada Republicans with Republican National Committee rules. 

The short version of this is that as long as one or fewer candidates file for the Republican presidential primary in Nevada, there will not be one. There have already been some innovative filing proposals in party-run processes this cycle. Perhaps Nevada Republicans could make it a part of the caucus filing for candidates to not file for the state-run primary?

Again, the lawsuit is unnecessary.

...

Henry Gomez at NBC News was nice enough to chat to FHQ about the recent South Carolina Republican presidential primary decision. He and Matt Dixon have a thoroughly reported piece up about it. To some degree, the pair play up the gap in the calendar that South Carolina Republicans are seeking to take advantage of. 

There was always going to be a February gap in the primary calendar after the changes on the Democratic side for 2024. But up until this past weekend, the question seemed to be whether Republicans in the Palmetto state (and those in Nevada, for that matter) would jump into January or settle in early February. In other words, if South Carolina and/or Nevada Republicans filled that February gap, then the expectation was that it would be on the front end. However, South Carolina Republicans surprised in gravitating toward the end of the gap instead. And there is a sizable space between a New Hampshire primary hypothetically on January 22 and the South Carolina Republican primary on February 24. That, again, gives Nevada Republicans quite a bit of runway for scheduling their caucuses and noticeably decompresses the beginning of the calendar.

Good piece from Gomez and Dixon. 

...

From the endorsement primary...

• Former Vice President Mike Pence picked up the support of Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb. It is Pence's biggest endorsement to date, and although it comes from a later primary state, it is a nice bit of homegrown support.
• It is funny. Just last week FHQ noted that Senator Tim Scott's efforts at home were potentially crowding out non-Trumps in the Palmetto state. Well, Ron DeSantis is heading back to South Carolina for another visit and town hall, and the Florida governor has rolled out an endorsement list that includes 15 South Carolina state legislators -- 11 from the House of Representative and four state senators. It is not what Scott has, but the support is not nothing either (a little more than 10 percent of the Republicans in the state legislature). In a state where the big names are either running for the Republican presidential nomination or have endorsed Trump, these state legislative endorsements are important signals. 

...

From around the invisible primary...

• Former Texas Representative Will Hurd (R) launched his oft-teased presidential bid.
• Doug Burgum has not been shy about tapping into his personal wealth to fund his campaign. The North Dakota governor has been the biggest spender in the Republican presidential field since he officially kicked off his run earlier in June. 
• Big donors in Illinois Republican circles are pushing former Prairie state Governor Bruce Rauner (R) to back former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. But other forces within the broader party network in the Land of Lincoln are backing DeSantis. It is an interesting proxy battle in a state deeper into the primary calendar, and it notably does not seem to include Trump.

--

Recent posts:

One more quirk in the scheduling of the South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary

Are Iowa and New Hampshire likely to face RNC penalties?

South Carolina's move greatly reduces uncertainty on the 2024 presidential primary calendar

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

One more quirk in the scheduling of the South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...

• Republicans in the Virgin Islands have set forth an ambitious plan for 2024 delegate allocation and selection in the island territory. All the details at FHQ Plus.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.

In Invisible Primary: Visible today...

...

One more thing on South Carolina Republicans setting the date of their 2024 presidential primary...

In revamping FHQ's 2024 presidential primary calendar after the decision out of the Palmetto state over the weekend, it dawned on me that the South Carolina Republican primary has really not "moved" all that far. In truth, it has not moved at all. The date was never set. But now, the primary is set for February 24, 2024. 

Where did FHQ have it tentatively placed way back in the initial iteration of the calendar that was released the day after Inauguration Day in 2021? 

February 24, 2024. 

This is not a boast. It is more a coincidence than anything else. In that time, in early 2021, before the Nevada legislature established the new presidential primary in the Silver state and scheduled it for the first Tuesday in February, the outlook on the 2024 calendar was fairly straightforward. It was going to look like 2016 and 2020: Iowa during the first week of February, New Hampshire's primary the following week and the South Carolina Republican primary the next weekend more than seven days after that. 

However, something was going to have to give in the long run in that scenario because FHQ also had the Nevada caucuses -- again, before the primary was established -- on the same February 24 date. Ultimately, two things gave. First, Nevada established the early February primary. But second South Carolina Republicans relented by apparently yielding their implied third position in the Republican order to Nevada Republicans (whether the party there opts into the state-run primary or not).

But it is funny how it has all worked out to this point. Nevada Republicans still have to settle their plans for 2024. 

...

From around the invisible primary...

• In the money primary, Ron DeSantis has been fundraising in California this week. Next week the Florida governor will do the same thing in Rockland County outside of New York. The $6600 per person dinner with DeSantis and major business leaders will be his second fundraiser of the day in the Empire state, following another event in Manhattan.
• Axios Detroit does their version of the hybrid Michigan primary-caucus system helps Trump story. To be clear, it is not so much the format that helps Trump as the make up of the Michigan Republican Party that may benefit the former president. This can be a kind of chicken or the egg argument, but if the party were tilted toward another candidate and/or if the grassroots were energized and aligned with another candidate, then the format would help them. The big thing about the change is that it erects institutional hurdles that will make it hard for candidates not named Trump or DeSantis to effectively compete in the Great Lakes state. They are the two with the best combination of name recognition, financial resources and organization to make it work in Michigan under the proposed hybrid rules. ...at this time. That picture could change.
• A local, North Dakota-centered look at how folks nationally are reacting to Governor Doug Burgum's bid for the Republican presidential nomination. 
• In the travel primary, both Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis will be in New Hampshire next Tuesday, June 27. Trump to keynote a New Hampshire Federation of Republican Women luncheon in Concord and DeSantis for a town hall meeting in Hollis. 
• Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's anti-Trump run at the Republican nomination is not without some heavy hitters in the political donor game. There was some early reporting that Mets owner and hedge fund founder Steve Cohen was also financially backing Christie's bid through a super PAC. Cohen remains on the periphery of the Republican race for now. 

...

On this date...

...in 2011, former Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman joined the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. 

--

Recent posts:

Are Iowa and New Hampshire likely to face RNC penalties?

South Carolina's move greatly reduces uncertainty on the 2024 presidential primary calendar

Sunday Series: What exactly are Nevada Republicans up to on delegate rules for 2024?

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Sunday Series: What exactly are Nevada Republicans up to on delegate rules for 2024?

Nevada is, to a great degree, the redheaded stepchild of the early primary calendar. 

It almost always has been since the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2006 added the Nevada caucuses to the lineup for the 2008 cycle. Those caucuses in the Silver state were to have been between Iowa and New Hampshire under the rules adopted by national Democrats, but then Florida and Michigan crashed the party, pushing into January and setting off a domino effect on the rest of the early calendar. 

The Michigan move to January 15 forced the primary in New Hampshire, under state law, up two weeks, earlier than prescribed in the DNC rules. But Nevada Democrats hung back, keeping the party's caucuses at the point on the calendar consistent with the national party guidelines, 17 days before Super Tuesday. 

Thereafter, the Democratic rules institutionalized Nevada in the third position in the calendar order rather than in the second slot. 

Things were different on the Republican side of the ledger. Never intended to be a part of the early Republican calendar for 2008, Nevada Republicans, nonetheless, aligned their caucuses with the precinct meetings of Silver state Democrats in the middle of January. That had the benefits of moving the Republican caucuses into the mix and not ceding the early organization in the state to Democrats. But it also ultimately meant the Republican caucuses would be scheduled on the same date as the Republican primary in South Carolina.

However, because the 2008 delegate allocation in Nevada was not bound to the results of those caucuses, Republicans in the state skirted national party penalties on the timing of primaries and caucuses. After all, it was the DNC that had added Nevada to the early calendar for 2008. National Republicans had not. In fact, the Republican National Committee (RNC) did not exempt Nevada in their rules until the 2010 series of amendments were added to the rules adopted at the 2008 national convention in St. Paul. And even then, the Nevada Republican precinct caucuses did not elect, select, allocate or bind delegates to the national convention in 2012. Ron Paul ultimately controlled that delegation in Tampa.

Regardless, the Nevada caucuses had been added to the list (in the rules) of carve-out states the RNC allowed to hold contests before Super Tuesday. But the implementation of the caucuses in both 2008 and 2012 was problematic enough that it never seemed as if Nevada Republicans and the caucuses were on solid ground on the early calendar. Although no overt threats to Nevada's position ever really materialized, the legacy of the reluctant Republican adoption of Nevada as a part of the early presidential primary calendar has persisted. It has been ingrained in the fabric of how presidential campaigns have approached the state in the intervening years. 

Unlike Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, the caucuses in Nevada were not and have not long been a featured part of the early Republican calendar. And it shows. Nevada often goes unmentioned in stories of candidate trips to the early states and when candidates do show up in the Silver state, the state is often talked about as a forgotten (or not focused upon) aspect of the beginnings of the nomination process. 

But is that about to change or is it in the process of changing? 

Winner-take-all?

No, FHQ does not mean the DeSantis visit to the Silver state this weekend is a change. Rather, it is something else oddly buried in the next to last paragraph in an NBC story about it. 

But, [former Nevada Republican Party executive director, Zachary] Moyle noted, Nevada does present a “massive opportunity” to candidates because of its “winner-take-all” system, in which all of its delegates are awarded to the candidate who carries the state.

This is actually news that either is big or deserves a fact check. Nevada conducting a primary or (likely) caucuses with winner-take-all rules in the early window of the Republican process is or would be a big deal. Sure, there are only roughly 25 delegates at stake, but if they were all to be allocated to the winner statewide, then that could prove to be a bigger net delegate margin than in a much larger state with far more delegates on the line under a more proportional system. Nevada could punch about its weight and deliver a fairly major victory early in the process. 

But is Nevada winner-take-all? 

Maybe?

According to Zachary Moyle, yes. But the standing rules that are posted on the Nevada Republican Party web page as of this writing suggest no:

In accordance with the Rules of the Republican National Committee, in Presidential election years, the Nevada Republican Party chooses that its National Delegates and Alternates shall be allocated proportionally based on the final results of the Nevada Presidential Preference Poll, the Alternative Presidential Preference Poll or the Presidential Primary Election, as appropriate, rounded to the nearest whole number.

Granted, those rules date to June 2020 after the Alternative Presidential Preference Poll (APPP) of the last cycle, a contest where President Trump won all of the delegates from the Silver state. But the APPP is not necessarily designed to be a winner-take-all contest. It is a contest that is triggered by an incumbent Republican president seeking reelection. But other candidates are eligible under the rules and can gain access to the ballot with the signatures of 20 members of the Nevada Republican Party State Central Committee. None did in time for the 2020 vote among the members of the NRPSCC, so Trump was the only name on the ballot. And by extension, he won all of the available Nevada delegates. 

But in a competitive cycle in a Nevada Presidential Preference Poll (caucuses) or a Presidential Primary Election, the allocation would be proportional. 

However, maybe those rules are obsolete. They could be. It may just be that the Nevada Republican Party has adopted new rules for 2024 in the time since June 2020 and the web page has simply not been updated. This is entirely possible.

But winner-take-all? In February?

Assume for a moment that the currently posted rules are wrong. They are outdated and a new version detailing the winner-take-all allocation rules for 2024 have not replaced them. Well, that does raise an interesting question. 

Are states with contests before March 15 not prohibited from using truly winner-take-all rules, where a plurality winner statewide wins all of the delegates? Yeah, actually that is true. But here is the thing: under Rule 16(c)(1) Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are exempt from both the winner-take-all restrictions and (for the most part) the timing restrictions barring states from holding contests before March 1. 

So...

If the Nevada rules have been changed and are now winner-take-all, then technically, that is compliant under RNC rules. And that is a reality that is flying under the radar for A LOT of people, including the campaigns. A winner-take-all Nevada is a Nevada that more candidates would be flocking to. They are not. ...at least not yet. 

What about that Nevada Republican Party lawsuit against the new presidential primary?

That may be the funny thing here. The lawsuit may actually point toward the posted rules being outdated. 

Why? 

A cursory dig through those rules turns up this section:

§ 7.0 Primary Election Contingency.
Should state law be amended to provide for a Presidential Primary Election, the provisions of this chapter regulating a Presidential Preference Poll shall be null and void, but all other provisions not related to the Poll otherwise regulating Precinct Meetings shall remain in force.

Read that section. It seems receptive to a presidential primary. It defers to any newly amended law providing for a presidential primary in the Silver state. If the Nevada Republican Party has not changed the rule, then that conflicts with the stated intent of the lawsuit. If the rule has been changed or stricken, then the recent presence of such a rule undermines lawsuit to some degree. Look, parties have the freedom of association under the first amendment and a party can alter the rules that govern it. Nevada Republicans are on firm ground there. But it is not a good look if the current rules give (or recently gave) a thumbs up to the presidential primary and the state party is suing to get out of it. That would not suggest good management at the party. 

But again, the rules may be different. They could have been altered since June 2020 and the new version not posted. It happens. But the questions now are this:

1) Are there different rules in place for 2024 than the ones posted, dated June 2020?

2) What are those rules? Do they include a truly winner-take-all allocation method in the early window? Do those changes eliminate the presidential primary contingency? 

If Nevada is actually winner-take-all in the Republican process, then that is a big deal that deserves a lot more discussion than it has received to this point in the invisible primary. It certainly begs for a more prominent position than the next-to-last paragraph in a story. 

But if the rules are the same, then why did that winner-take-all reference from Moyle go unchecked?

A lot of questions. Not a lot of answers. Not yet anyway.

--

Recent posts:

[From FHQ Plus] A glance inside one of the primary alternatives for Idaho Republicans

DeSantis is flirting with the qualifying thresholds in the delegate game

Who ends up embarrassed if Iowa and New Hampshire go rogue in 2024?

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

[From FHQ Plus] A glance inside one of the primary alternatives for Idaho Republicans

The following is a cross-posted excerpt from FHQ Plus, FHQ's subscription newsletter. Come check the rest out and consider a paid subscription to unlock the full site and support our work. 

--

From Idaho Republicans Are Making Plans for a 2024 Without a Presidential Primary:

[NOTE: Earlier in 2023, the Idaho legislature eliminated the separate March presidential primary in the Gem state. And due to a drafting snafu did not reinsert the necessary language to consolidate the primary with the May nomination contests. That has put both parties in the state in a bind for 2024.]

Already, Idaho Democrats have called for a special session to restore the primary, scheduling it along with the primaries for other offices in May as was the intent of the bill that was initially brought before the state legislature earlier this year. But Gem state Democrats have also put forth a contingency plan for caucuses on Saturday, May 18 if the legislature does not act to fix the primary problem in time for 2024.

But what about Republicans in the Gem state? 

For Idaho Republicans both the demands and the contingency plans are different. In fact, there are two plans from which the Idaho Republican Party State Central Committee will choose at the summer meeting in Challis on June 23-24: a caucus plan and a convention plan.

Presidential Caucus Plan

Idaho Republicans do have some recent experience with the use of caucuses for allocating and selecting delegates. The party last used one in 2012. But the 2024 caucus plan proposed by Region 2 Chair Clinton Daniel strays from the vote-until-a-candidate-receives-a-majority, winner-take-all method the party used in the cycle when Mitt Romney won the caucuses. 

Instead, the Daniel’s proposal would provide for a more traditional caucus with a more conventional allocation scheme. First of all, the delegates would be pooled under the provisions of the plan. There would be just one allocation for the at-large, congressional district and automatic/party delegates combined. Additionally, there would be a winner-take-all trigger, where, if a candidate wins a majority of the caucus preference vote statewide, then that candidate would be awarded all of the Idaho delegates. Otherwise, delegates would be proportionally allocated with a 15 percent qualifying threshold. Any rounding would be to the nearest whole delegate with any unallocated delegate going to the winner. 

Again, all of that is fairly conventional. But there are a few unique provisions in the proposed caucus plan:

1. The date: The proposed date for the presidential caucuses in this plan? Saturday, March 2, the same day as the Michigan Republican district caucuses. Basically, both of those contests would fall into a position on the calendar similar to that of the South Carolina Democratic primary in 2020, the Saturday before Super Tuesday.1 That is not the February date that Idaho Republican Party Chair Dorothy Moon talked about in the committee hearing that derailed the presidential primary fix, but it is close. 

2. A conditional caucus: But there is a catch in the caucus plan. If the state legislature restores the presidential primary before the October 1 RNC deadline for delegate selection plans to be submitted to the national party, then the Idaho Republican Party would use the state-run primary. However, Idaho Republicans would only use the primary if the election is scheduled for the second Tuesday in March as it was before H 138 unintentionally eliminated it this past legislative session. [This seems unlikely. What drove the elimination of the separate presidential primary in the first place last winter was the cost savings associated with consolidating the presidential preference vote with other primary elections in May.]

3. A two-tiered filing process: If the prime, March 2 date is not enough to draw candidates out to the Gem state to campaign and spend money, the system under which candidates will file to participate in the caucuses may. The baseline filing fee is set at $50,000 under the proposal. Candidates may choose not to campaign or spend money in the state, but the campaigns would have to fork over an exorbitant fee to the state party, a fee that may cushion that blow to Idaho Republicans of candidates skipping out on the state. But that is not the only filing option. The fee is cut in half if the candidate holds an event in the state sometime during January or February 2024. That is still a lofty fee and it has the benefit of bringing the candidates into the state. It is a clever twist that a state party can more easily pull off with a party-run process (than a state-run one, the parameters of which are defined by state law).

--

Recent posts:

DeSantis is flirting with the qualifying thresholds in the delegate game

Who ends up embarrassed if Iowa and New Hampshire go rogue in 2024?

Tim Scott is making it tough for others in South Carolina

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Sunday Series: About that Unique Michigan Republican Primary-Caucus Plan (Part One)

Looking for Part Two? A closer look at the details of and problems with the primary-caucus hybrid Michigan Republicans have proposed for 2024 can be found at our sister site, FHQ Plus.

--

News broke Friday that Michigan Republicans had come to a consensus and were prepared to vote on whether the party would go the primary or caucus route in the presidential nomination process for 2024. 

Rather than automatically utilize the state-run primary as the state party had done every competitive Republican presidential nomination cycle following 1988, the Michigan GOP was backed into a corner on its 2024 plans based on four main factors:

1. Democrats in the state took unified control of state government in the Great Lakes state after the November 2022 midterm elections. 
2. At least partially (if not completely) because of that flip in control of the state legislature and Democrats retaining the governor's office, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) voted to add the Michigan presidential primary to early window lineup of states on the 2024 presidential primary calendar. Michigan Democrats seized on the opportunity to have an earlier, if not greater, voice in the nomination process and moved to comply with the new DNC calendar rules for 2024.
3. However, the new February 27 date for the state-run Michigan presidential primary would violate Republican National Committee (RNC) rules prohibiting states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina from holding primaries or caucuses before March 1. Opting into the primary, would open Michigan Republicans up to the super penalty associated with a violation of those timing rules, which would strip the state party of all but 12 delegates (nine delegates plus the three automatic/party delegates) to the national convention. 
4. Regardless of the potential for penalties from a rogue primary, Michigan Republicans, under new leadership as of early 2023, were already leery of a state-run presidential primary process that would be open not only to Republicans and independents (who want to affiliate with the party in the primary) but Democrats as well. 

Given those factors, the Michigan GOP in consultation with the RNC did not look on the primary or caucus question for 2024 as either/or but rather as one and the other. In a revised resolution of intent adopted on Saturday, June 10, Michigan Republicans chose to split 2024 delegate allocation across both the February 27 primary and congressional district caucuses to be held on Saturday, March 2. In a statement following the vote the Michigan Republican Party said the following¹:

In a move that threatens electoral representation and undermines the voices of Republican voters in Michigan, the Michigan’s Democrat controlled legislature advanced the Michigan presidential primary to February 27th. This would automatically cause an RNC penalty reducing Michigan Republican delegates at the RNC convention in Milwaukee from 55 to 12!  

This resolution complies with RNC rules and avoids the penalty. 

The Democrats thought they held the keys to whether Michigan Republicans have a voice regarding who is our nominee for president. 

They set the stage to make our process dependent upon when the Democrats end the Michigan’s legislative session. Today that control was destroyed. 

Cutting through the spin

Okay, revisit those four factors FHQ laid out above because they are important in pushing past the spin in all of this and getting to the crux of the matter. 

First, it is highly unlikely that either Michigan Democrats or Democrats in the national party were ever rubbing their hands together, saying "We've got Michigan Republicans now!" The timeline on the Democratic primary calendar decision suggests otherwise. The national party waited until after the midterms -- after it was clear which party was going to be in control of a variety of state governments -- before it settled on a lineup for the 2024 early window. Michigan, already an attractive option to the members of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, became even more attractive once it was clear after the November elections that the state would be under Democratic control. 

The national party decision on the calendar and any subsequent moves made in Lansing were made to affect the Democratic primary. There was little regard for the Republican process. And perhaps that is problematic. However, national Democrats have been rebuffed by the RNC over the last two cycles in their efforts to even informally coordinate the calendar. And on the state level in Michigan, it was Republicans in the state legislature who were driving a legislative push to an even earlier February primary date just a few months ago in late 2022. 

But shunt all of that to side for a moment. Democrats in Lansing and elsewhere were never really in control of anything other than moving the state-run primary anyway. Michigan Republicans always had paths out of trouble. But they were going to need a waiver from the RNC no matter what they chose to do. The point is that Michigan Republicans potentially had a national party waiver at their disposal if they successfully made that case before the RNC. Ultimately, it was state Democrats who had made the change and shifted the primary to a point on the calendar that violated RNC rules. And those rules have outs for just these types of possibilities.

Yet, choosing to go the caucus route would have potentially required a waiver from the RNC too. Michigan Republicans could not just choose to conduct caucuses. Those caucuses would have had to follow the February 27 primary to remain compliant with the RNC rules on timing. But merely opting to hold caucuses would not have ended the primary. Under state law that primary would have gone on as a beauty contest. And under RNC Rule 16 (a)(1), any statewide vote "must be used to allocate and bind the state's delegation to the national convention..." [Put a pin in section of the RNC rules. It is important for Part Two.] To hold caucuses after a statewide vote like that is counter to the intent of the rule, the language of which was added to prevent a double vote and/or non-binding scenario like those that proliferated in the 2012 cycle.

An RNC waiver would have provided a way to circumvent that conflict. But so, too, would have legal action on first amendment, freedom of association grounds (if the national party was for some reason not receptive to issuing a waiver). Political parties have a right to determine how they associate and who associates with the organization. Nominations fall under that banner, or precedent holds that they do anyway. 

The bottom line is this: If Michigan Republicans want to say that Democrats made the primary change without consulting them, then that is fine. That is a fair criticism. If the state party additionally wants to argue it prefers a caucus/convention system closed to all but registered Republicans to an open primary that allows non-Republicans to participate, then that is fine too. That is also legitimate. But exaggerating the control state Democrats have over the process is just that: an exaggeration. That is even more true in light of the fact that Michigan Republicans had recourse. They had ways around Democratic "control." One need not pretend otherwise.

Looking for Part Two? A closer look at the details of and problems with the primary-caucus hybrid Michigan Republicans have proposed for 2024 can be found at our sister site, FHQ Plus.

--

¹ The full statement from the Michigan Republican Party after the vote on the resolution:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The Michigan Republican Party Protects the Voice of Michigan Republican Voters 

Grand Rapids, MI – June 10th, 2023 – In a move that threatens electoral representation and undermines the voices of Republican voters in Michigan, the Michigan’s Democrat controlled legislature advanced the Michigan presidential primary to February 27th. This would automatically cause an RNC penalty reducing Michigan Republican delegates at the RNC convention in Milwaukee from 55 to 12!  

This resolution complies with RNC rules and avoids the penalty. 

The Democrats thought they held the keys to whether Michigan Republicans have a voice regarding who is our nominee for president. 

They set the stage to make our process dependent upon when the Democrats end the Michigan’s legislative session. Today that control was destroyed.  

The Michigan Republican Party would have been derelict in duty, and grossly irresponsible to leave the decision of full delegate representation of Michigan Republicans in the hands of the Democrats.  

Republican voters are tired of the party seeking to cut deals with Democrats instead of protecting the voice and interest of Republican voters.  

This drastic reduction in representation at the Republican National Convention would have marginalized millions of voters and stifled our ability to have a meaningful say in the selection of the 2024 Republican presidential nominee. The Resolution of Intent passed by the Michigan Republican Party State Committee protects the voice of millions of Republican voters across Michigan by ensuring the will of those voting in the primary will be heard.  

This resolution simultaneously prevents the RNC penalty.  

Recognizing the urgency and gravity of this situation, the Michigan Republican Party State Committee took decisive action today. The Michigan Republican Party has taken a crucial step towards ensuring fair representation for their constituents. 

"The Michigan Republican Party stands firmly against any attempts to diminish representation of Michigan Republicans," said Kristina Karamo, Chair of the Michigan Republican Party.  

"We are committed to preserving the integrity of the electoral process and guaranteeing that all Michigan voters, regardless of their political affiliation, have an equal opportunity to participate in the primary process." 

For those in the party who do not trust the election system run by the Secretary of State due to election integrity concerns, they now have a representative voice for some of the delegates from Michigan.  

By asserting their commitment to protecting the rights of Republican voters in the state, the Michigan Republican Party has demonstrated their dedication to preserving a fair and inclusive electoral system. 

The Michigan Republican Party encourages all Michigan voters to stay informed and engaged in the political process. By participating in the upcoming primary elections, voters can make their voices heard and contribute to shaping the future of our great state. 

###

--

Recent posts:

[From FHQ Plus] Folks, the new caucus law in Iowa does not affect state Democrats' plans for 2024

Legislative Inaction Struck a Blow Against a Primary Move in Connecticut, but the effort may not be dead

Pat Robertson, 1988 and the Modern Caucus Strategy in Republican Presidential Politics

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

[From FHQ Plus] About the California Republican Party Delegate Rules for 2024

The following is a cross-posted excerpt from FHQ Plus, FHQ's new subscription service. Come check the rest out and consider a paid subscription to unlock the full site and support our work. 

--

From Evening Digest 5/11/23:

Seema Mehta at the LA Times had a nice piece up today on Republican delegate allocation in California for 2024. The premise was that the winner-take-all by congressional district rules would grant greater voice to the small number of Republican voters in large urban areas compared to the more conservative areas of the state.

And sure, under the Republican National Committee (RNC) delegate apportionment scheme every congressional district — red, blue or purple — counts the same: three delegates each. As Mehta put it:

It doesn’t matter if it’s former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco-based district, home to 29,150 registered Republicans, … or current House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s district centered in Bakersfield, where 205,738 GOP voters live.

Mathematically speaking, it makes some strategic sense for campaigns to chase the districts with the smaller number of partisans. Very simply, the return on investment is greater. And there was some evidence of this in the 2016 race as FHQ noted in Invisible Primary: Visible earlier this year. 

But here is the thing: California will have a Super Tuesday primary next year. And that March 5 date is prior to March 15 when the winner-take-all prohibition under RNC rules ends. As a result, California Republicans utilizing a winner-take-all by congressional district delegate allocation method before March 15 would be in violation of those national party rules and cost the party half of their 169 delegates under Rule 17(a). 

How did it come to this? Is the California Republican Party deliberately flaunting RNC rules? It does not really look that way. 

To start, the baseline set of national convention delegate allocation rules is a winner-take-all by congressional district method. That has not changed in recent years. What did change in 2019 was that the party adopted a set of allocation rules that were more proportional for 2020 and complied with RNC rules for that cycle. But they sunset in 2021.1 That means that the baseline winner-take-all by congressional district rules are the rules for 2024. 

…for now.

But that will likely change and FHQ bases that on a couple of factors. First, nothing dealing with national convention delegates was even on the March state convention agenda with respect to bylaws changes. Of course, nothing had to be. There is a baseline set of allocation rules in place already that snapped back into action once the 2020 rules expired. 

Second, however, this is setting up just like 2019 when California Republicans faced the same dilemma heading into September ahead of their fall state convention that year. Staring down the prospect of RNC penalties if the party did not change the winner-take-most rules, California Republicans at the late September 2019 state convention adopted the proportional allocation scheme that sunset in 2021, a more proportional set of rules. 

And California Republicans have a September 2023 state convention lined up right before the RNC deadline to submit rules for the 2024 cycle to the national party on or before October 1. 

The question that emerges from this is why did the 2020 California allocation rules have to expire at all? It makes sense from the state party’s perspective to sunset the proportional rules if there is even an outside shot that the RNC would change its requirement for proportional rules during the early part of the calendar. But the RNC held steady and mostly carried over the same 2020 rules to the 2024 cycle when it finalized the rules package in April 2022. There is no evidence that the national party has subsequently made any additional changes (and could not after September 30, 2022 anyway under the restrictions on further rule amendments in Rule 12).

Look, San Francisco Republicans may dream of a bigger voice in 2024, but they are unlikely to get it if the state party wants to have its full voice at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee in summer 2024.

--

Recent posts:

Endorsements, Non-Endorsements, Unendorsements and Pre-Endorsements

A reminder about Iowa Republican Delegate Allocation

The National Parties and the Sanctioning of Presidential Primary Debates

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Primary or Caucus in 2024? For Michigan Republicans, it's still up in the air

Recently elected Michigan Republican Party Chair Kristina Karamo appeared before a Muskegon County Republican Party function last weekend and shed some additional light on where the state party stands with respect to the presidential primary or caucus question for the 2024 cycle. The comments come on the heels of the Democratic-controlled legislature's decision to move up the state-run presidential primary to late February, drawing Republicans in the Great Lakes state out of compliance with Republican National Committee (RNC) rules on the timing of delegate selection events. 

The following is a transcript of the primary/caucus-related portion of the Q&A at that event:

Questioner: "So the Democrats moved... voted to move our primary up to the fourth Tuesday in February. Do you have any idea..."

Karamo: "So, that's a very complicated issue. So, um, what's going on is that the Democrats have voted to move up the primary. And according to RNC rules, if the primary is before a certain date, we will be penalized at the RNC convention. And we'll have... We'll be voting with a smaller delegate strength at the RNC convention for president. That's the way it works. So, what happens is, is when we vote in a presidential primary, all of our delegate votes go to whoever won the popular vote in our state. And then all the various delegates go to the RNC convention and then vote for the candidate for president. And that's how our Republican nominee for president is decided. Um, with that penalty from the RNC, that means that we'll lose some of our delegate votes which means we lose attention and all kinds of things in Michigan." 

"So, we're working that out. I'm not prepared to speak on all the details. I will say that isn't a decision that we make. Uh, or that I make or [Michigan Republican Party co-chairwoman] Malinda [Pego] makes. Uh, that is a state committee issue, but we're kind of not saying a lot about it until we go through everything. One of the things I am working on is having like a -- I hate to use the word listening tour -- but having an opportunity for people on various sides of the issue." 

"Because one solution is to have a caucus where it will be [Michigan Republican Party] delegates voting on who the Republican nominee for president is in our state. So, that's some conversation that is being had. And so, I'm not taking a formal position as an individual on either side of the conversation. I've had my opinions, but then after talking with people on the other side of the opinion, I was like 'Ooh, this is a little bit of a complicated issue.' So, I'm not prepared to speak beyond that, but I think there is a lot of conversation that we need to have as a party of what we're going to do." 

"Because we are in a pickle. Because if the RNC doesn't grant us the waiver that means we're voting with less delegate strength. So then, sometimes the option is a caucus. And some people like a caucus because it keeps Democrats out of our primaries. [Statement greeted approvingly among those in attendance] Because that's a big problem that they jump in our primaries and if they do not have a new candidate... If they don't primary Joe Biden, then that means all of them will jump into our primary. And so the caucus prevents them from jumping in our primary and only actual Republicans are voting for president. So, there is a lot of conversation to be had, but I guess that's pretty much all I... I don't really have anything else to add to it."

Questioner [following up]: "Is the date locked or is there any challenge to moving that, or is this for sure going be the fourth week of February for our primary?"

Karamo: "Well, that's the Republican to Democrat legislature [transition], so I need the exact date, but that's totally up to them [Democrats in the legislature]. That's... That's one of the reasons why if we do find ourselves in the situation where we still have a primary, I think the RNC is... It would only be right for them to grant us a waiver. It wouldn't be fair to punish us for something we have no control over."

[Emphasis above is FHQ's. Michigan is not a winner-take-all state as Karamo seemed to imply. Even if Democrats in the Michigan legislature had not moved the date of the presidential primary to the end of February, the mid-March date would still have fallen before the point at which state parties could allocate delegates in a winner-take-all fashion. Michigan is a baseline proportional state in the Republican process with a winner-take-all trigger that is activated if a candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote statewide.]

--

Look, Karamo says a lot there that does not really reveal much of anything as of now. Obviously, this is a complicated matter. The state party is concerned about the impact of any RNC penalties if a waiver is not extended by the national party. But Karamo was quick to voice the virtues of conducting a closed caucus/convention process as opposed to an open primary that may invite some idle Democrats into the process. The former seemed to be the "side of the opinion" on which Karamo fell, but the chair also left open the door to alternatives (in a matter that will be decided by the state committee).

There are a couple of factors that FHQ would add to this. 

First, is that the RNC may or may not take an active role in all of this. The national party could remain hands off and let the Michigan Republican Party battle to opt out of the primary and hold caucuses that comply with the RNC rules instead. However, the RNC could alternatively choose to be more hands-on and issue a waiver only for the contest -- primary or caucus -- that it would prefer. If a primary occurs and there is a Republican vote (meaning Michigan Republicans were unable to opt out), then that statewide vote would, under RNC rules, have to be used to allocate delegates instead of later and rules-compliant caucuses. In other words, Great Lakes state Republicans would have to get a waiver in that case to hold caucuses and allocate/select delegates to the national convention through them. But it could be that the RNC would prefer the state party use the primary, even if it technically violates the rules, but with a waiver. As Karamo said, it is "very complicated."

Second, Karamo noted later in her remarks that the state party was in the hole after the prior administration (under the previous chair) left office. How much? $460,000. A state party that is in debt may be less willing to opt out of a state-run primary -- again, even a non-compliant one -- with few ways to actually fund an alternative. And the state party running a debt would definitely factor into any decision to conduct and pay for state party-run caucuses. That is not to say that the Michigan Republican Party could not raise the necessary funds, but that reality would factor into the decision making process. 

It is still a mess. And from the look of it, that mess will extend into the future for the Republican Party in Michigan. The RNC has a deadline of October 1, 2023 for state parties to have finalized their plans for delegate selection in 2024. Some resolution will likely come before then.

Related:

2/20/23: Michigan Republicans and 2024. It was a mess before the chair vote.

--

Recent posts:

The Fix is in for the Idaho Presidential Primary Bill

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Karl Rove's Faux Certainty on 2024 Unknowns

Invisible Primary: Visible -- 2024 Presidential Primary Movement So Far

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies.